Gentleman,
I am finding that there is disagreement on this issue at best and ambiguity at worst. The process by which a Grand Lodge is originated seems to me very unclear which is the cause of some calling others "clandestine" while those lodges genuinely see themselves as regular and recognized. Calling a lodge clandestine is a serious charge, I feel, and we should have a very clear standard by which that judgement is made.
While some do not understand it & others choose to deny it, the standards for regularity & recognition are clear.
1) How does a GL substantiate that their lineage indeed traces back to one of the original three GL's? And to whom do they substantiate this?
Let's take the Grand Lodge of Texas as an example. Originally, before Texas fought for and won independence from Mexico, some Brethren requested permission from the Grand Lodge of Mexico to form Masonic Lodges in Texas, but were unable to obtain such. They then sought & received permission to form Lodges in Texas from the Grand Lodge of Louisiana. This is the proper procedure to form Lodges in an area where no Grand Lodge yet exists.
After three Lodges were formed in Texas, the representatives then met and agreed to form the Grand Lodge of Texas, as was their right. As they had received their authority to operate from the Grand Lodge of Louisiana, which had originally received their authority to operate from the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania, which had originally received their authority to operate from the Grand Lodge of England, the Grand Lodge of Texas was deemed "regular in
origin". This is called "lineage".
To be deemed "regular in
practice", a Grand Lodge must adhere to the "Landmarks", i.e. requiring belief in a Supreme Being, limiting admission to men only, and so forth. To receive "recognition", which must be applied for and received through a formal procedure, a Grand Lodge must demonstrate that they are "
regular in practice and origin".
In an area where there is no existing Grand Lodge, application is made to the Grand Lodge from which the applying Grand Lodge's lineage traces- in the case of Texas, the Grand Lodge of England.
In an area where a Grand Lodge is already exercising jurisdiction, a new Grand Lodge must apply for recognition from the existing Grand Lodge, demonstrating their regularity of origin and practice. This is the procedure followed by the Prince Hall Affiliated Grand Lodge of Texas. After our Committee on Fraternal Relations determined that PHA Texas could trace their lineage through African Lodge #459 in Massachusetts to the Grand Lodge of England, thereby being regular in origin, and found that they were also regular in practice, the committee reported favorably to the Grand Communication of the Grand Lodge of Texas, which voted to extend recognition to PHA Texas, which could then request & receive recognition from the United Grand Lodge of England.
2) If a GL does not need to receive a warrant or charter directly from one of the aforementioned original GL's , who then is legitimately sanctioned to provide them one?
They must follow the procedures described above.
3) Must a GL at least have recognition from one of the original three GL's in order not to be considered clandestine
Yes.
or can that recognition come from elsewhere?
For example: http://rglva.com/recognitions.html
The Regular Grand Lodge of Virginia has a "Warrant of Constitution" from a Grand Lodge in Italy (Gran Loggia Madre CAMEA) and they also have mutual recognition with a number of Grand Lodges around the world. However, the GL that issued their warrant is not recognized by any of the three original GL's. Does this make the Regular Grand Lodge of Virginia clandestine despite having a warrant and recognitions?
None of the organizations listed in your link are regular OR recognized. As they are all clandestine, so is the "Regular Grand Lodge of Virginia", which is anything but "regular". Calling themselves so doesn't make it so.
